It is becoming clear to me that Bill O'Reilly is not on our side. Despite protestations to the contrary (he claims he is an independent), O'Reilly is a man of the left.

Why?

O'Reilly's political hero is RFK.

In an interview with Kerry, he seemed like a John French Kerry fan.

He was an attack dog when Lynne Cheney was a guest on his program.

He was an attack dog when Marc Raccicot was on his show.

He hyped the Rilya Wilson case and bashed brother Jeb on the eve of the Florida Gubernatorial election-- an election that the Democrats wanted to use to deal a body blow to Dubya.

Because he is saying that the reports of WMD in Iraq were phony (though they could still turn up) and requires heads to roll and suggests Bush has a credibilty gap.

Because in a segment tonight regarding an all-white private prom in Georgia, he blamed Republican Governor Sonny Perdue-- who had not a thing to do with it.

Bill, whose daughter will no doubt go to an upper class all-white school, asserted that the white kids had no right to set up their own prom.

I believe the all white prom was a mean-spirited act and undoubtedly hurt the feelings of their African American peers, but they had the right to do it. It was a private (wrongheaded) affair, and Sonny Perdue didn't have anything to do with it.

I think the story highlighted the tendency of liberal whites -who live in lily white neighborhoods and inculcate their kids in blue blood private school- to demand that poor Southern whites forcibly integrate. I think this is unfair- if you have implicitly (and often explicitly) chosen segregation in your life, you can't force others to do what you go out of your way to avoid.

I think what the kids in Georgia have done is wrong and hurtful, but I think in the interest of a full debate, the liberal accusers should prove their integration bona fides.

It's like Teddy Kennedy calling Charles Pickering a racist (Pickering sent his son Chip to Afr. Amer. majority schools in Mississippi, and Pickering also fought the Klan long before it was popular (and safe) to do so), while he , no doubt, sent his coke-head children to all-white boarding schools. Hypocrisy.

The kids were wrong and many probably harbor racist feelings, but their accusers in the mainstream media practice segregation every day. These kids do attend a majority Afr. Amer. High School.

All in all, I predict, if the economy stagnates, O'Reilly (who has never come off as a big Bush fan) will endorse Kerry!

Clean out your ears - he greatly qualified the Gore remark. But you are right about him wanting to look Independent, helps the ratings, doncha know.. and he would love John French Kerry to be candidate- that will make for great TV before the election. They have the book ready to throw at Kerry.

No way. He basically endorsed Bush over Gore in 2000 and has been kind to Bush on some issues and hard on him on others. I think that O'Reilly is an independent (probably brought up Democrat but through life experience and education has learned how the economy and real world really work) with conservative personal values (Catholic who married and had kids relatively late).

All in all, O'Reilly is pretty fair and balanced, with a tilt to the right.

O'Reilly for Kerry? Wouldn't surprise me a bit. He has always spoken quite well of Kerry, saying he isn't as liberal as most people think, that he knows him from when he lived in Mass, etc.

Could O'Reilly support Kerry? Yep, and it would be totally hypocritical of him as he claims to want the no spin zone. Kerry is the epitome of spin but for some reason, O'Reilly often turns a blind eye to it.

14
posted on 05/05/2003 6:01:35 PM PDT
by Wphile
(Keep the UN out of Iraq)

The show has been such a dismal failure that I wonder if he's going to keep it going. Rush is a superior radio host, but it sure is nice to have an alternative in the car when Rush is pre-empted by baseball!

O'Reilly is a populist, first and foremost. He is an independent thinker and rather bright (degrees from Boston University and Harvard University). He confounds critics with his divergent viewpoints (ie: tough on crime but opposes death penalty). I find he is at his worst when he is bullying his guests, but at his best with a equivocating bureaucrat (ie: United Nations type) or politician- forcing them to either answer the question or look ridiculous. I highly doubt he will endorse Kerry. But I don't see him being an unquestioning lackey for Bush either.

You are arguing that the behavior of extremely drunk college kids reflects on the behavior of high school kids of a similar racial background.

Well, let's see, in recent months we've seen riotous behavior by predominantly white groups of college students after sporting events at the University of Minnesota, the University of Maine, Ohio State University, and Michigan State University. By your logic, black kids should be boycotting proms that include white kids in Minneapolis, Orono, Columbus, and Lansing, out of fear of misbehavior.

One thing that is troubling is the rate of AIDS among blacks in the rural South-- it is at levels like those seen in the early days of the plague in Africa).

It is also spread heterosexually. I think that is troubling. That is unusual to see such levels in rural areas-- in gay and urban communities it is typical, but in rural, heterosexual populations it is odd.

I think the white kids hurt their friends, and I also see your point that the Afr. Amer. communities in these areas have terrible social problems. But then again, rural whites in middle america are now using crank and heroin at Amsterdam numbers.

The Heartland is in decline and there is simply no place to go to avoid the ills of city life.

I'd like him to side with the President, but in the end, I couldn't care less who O'Reilly endorses. His opinion won't affect mine. Now, if he goes off the deep end, I'll find something else on my sat dish to watch. But I don't think he'll do that.

Bill Kristol lauded McLame in the primaries, but I still read The Weekly Standard.

29
posted on 05/05/2003 6:22:27 PM PDT
by Recovering_Democrat
(I'm SO glad to no longer be associated with the Party of Dependence on Government.)

You took the words from my mouth. O'Reilly is getting so hateful~~~~~~~~~he will not let anyone speak on his show. I do not know what his problem is but I hope he does not let his popularity blow up his brain........

I started listening to O'Reilly when he used to have Col Hunt on and enjoyed the show. I have continued to listen to him and can stay tuned for about 50% of the time.O'Reilly takes a position ,but, does not always argue with facts or logic. Two weeks ago,he said that Rick Santorum had said that " gays should be treated like criminals and they should be prosecuted." O'Reilly made it sound like a direct quote,which was unfair and misleading.Now his crusade is WMD. The fact that they have not "turned up" means that Bush has a credibility problem and that SF/Intel have misled the Administration. O'Reilly wants heads to roll and said he will give the Administration until the end of the month to find them. That's when I turn him off.

I think O'reilly's a closet conservative who tries to "look" independent by attacking conservatives on occasion. Unfortunately, he attacks Republicans over the silliest issues which just makes him look stupid.

Exactly - and he is a rather nonideological populist at that. He is a tough interviewer with an obviously pro-American slant with lots of rhetoric about responsibilty, but that doesn't make him a conservative. I don't see what the big deal is about him.

The experts that appear on Fox are much better than the ones on the majors (John Stossel's program excepted). They even have libertarians on there!

O'Reilly was an idiot during the Iraq war, when he talked to the brilliant Col. David Hunt, he kept talking about 100, 000 Iraqi casualties.

Fox is carried in the middle east, reports of huge enemey casulaties plays well domestically (in Red States) but in a region where Al Jazeera's propaganda is King, American media reports of 100,000 iraqi KIAs is not good!

The bottom line on O'Reilly: he is not for or against any party. He flames democrats and Pubbies on an even keel, and he won't tolerate ANYONE who starts to sling the bullshit on his show. I acknowlege that and accept it.

If the US press emulated Bill's example we would be a whole lot better off.

I agree with your position. I've always thought of O'Reilly as a populist, not a conservative. He takes the position he thinks most of his audience support or what he thinks will be provocative. That is why he is always all over the map.

40
posted on 05/05/2003 6:55:04 PM PDT
by microgood
(They will all die......most of them.)

It is pretty darn weird that Camelot's vigorous anti-Communism has never been scorned by the Left. Papa Kennedy can be Pro-Nazi and the sons can be Pro-McCarthy, and the Left worships them anyway. Weird!

I thought Jumpin' Jim Jeffords was a moderate, an independent. What's he doing giving the Democrat response as an independent? This just proves that there are no such things as independents. --Rush Limbaugh

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.